Case Study – Starting a Jazz Club in NYC

NY SLA’s Gotchas

Case Study: Trying to Start a Jazz Club in New York City

Coalition of Musicians and Dancers to Eliminate

Regulations Against Music and Dancing

http://dance-music-regulation.com

Temporary permits not available with Live Music and Patron Dancing in Method of Operation

How does one start a new jazz club in New York City when a 2022 state law provides that temporary retail permits may not allow live music or patron dancing? We were not aware of this restriction until the SLA recently highlighted these provisions in a new advisory. See ABC Law § 97-a (3).

The proposal discussed beloe by this  jazz club is a useful case study of issues relating to the over-regulation of dancing and live music by the SLA.

This § 97-a (3) restriction is not included in the primary portions of the ABC Law—including §§ 64 and 64-a—that are generally devoted to liquor-licenses Instead, the restriction is buried in § 97. I recall a meeting last fall with several liquor-license attorneys: when I asked whether the ABC Law or SLA regulations mentioned live music or patron dancing, the answer was “no.” http://dance-music-regulation.com/document/500-foot-law-statutory-provisions/

In January 2026, the Governor submitted a bill to extend the effective period for another year. Part N. http://dance-music-regulation.com/document/governor-2026-proposals-to-amend-abc-law. § 97-a (3) unfortunately identifies live music and patron dancing as factors appropriate to be included in methods of operation.

Nearly one thousand 500- Foot hearings in 2025.

As a result, anyone starting a jazz club from scratch within a 500-foot zone is going to need to wait until the application moves through other cumbersome license-approval procedures. In a 500-foot zone, one typically must go through the often 500-foot pseudo-hearing—even where there is no opposition. In 2025, the SLA held 897 of these pseudo-proceedings, imposing more costs and delay on owners.

The SLA considers method of operation requirement to apply to private events.

Currently, an owner is seeking to establish a jazz club at a midtown site where the previous operator ran a club with live music and patron dancing. The owner completed the local community board’s form and stated that its method of operation would include live music, but not patron dancing—effectively locking in that representation even if it later the club wanted to offer dancing for special events or private parties. The SLA regulates clubs and catering halls on the issues of live music and patron dancing in methods of operation

Community Board refuses to approve unless owner signs stipulation

Interestingly, the community board—though not seemingly opposed to live music (and likely not opposed to patron dancing, which was not raised)—refused to recommend the license unless the owner would sign a stipulation with the community board, illustrating how boards exercise their control over applicants.

The applicant here did sign the stipulation:

The City Charter provides that a community board only has advisory powers. Nothing authorizes a board to enter into agreements, and of course the agreements are inoperative since a community board has no power to sue.

Stipulation restricted owner’s ability to change method of operation.

Of note as well is that the proposed stipulation required that the owner not seek to change its method of operation without notifying the community board.

Community boards are merely advisory and have no power to enter into contract.

Community boards are supposed to be merely advisory. They have no independent legal status in this process and cannot themselves maintain lawsuits.  –If the SLA determines that no substantial evidence supports demands to not include patron dancing or live music, the community board has no standing to sue the SLA. But in practice, the SLA—especially in 500-foot cases—often treats community board opinions as determinative, turning the entire process on its head.

Case law holding that restrictions on live music violate the First Amendment

One final note: the temporary-permit restrictions as to live music and arguably as to patron dancing, as implemented, are on their face violative of the First Amendment as interpreted in New York cases such as Chiasson I and Chiasson II and Sportsmen’s Tavern v. New York State Liquor Authority, and in two federal cases, Hund v. Cuomo and Muchmore v. City of New York.